Apple: The New Microsoft

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Yeah. I have not bought songs before that were listed as $1.29. DRM never kept me from buying music. S Jobs always said that $.99 was the limit and anything higher, you start to think about the cost.

I don't know anything about the Yahoo service but music subscriptions do sound enticing especially the MS model were you get to keep a number of songs each month.

Most of the time I only like one song on an album. I'd pay up to $3 a song for something I really liked and would like to give back to the artist that's probably my limit though.

With Yahoo, I had unlimited music downloads which I could transfer to Mp3 player for a year for I think it was $8/month. Yes it had DRM to make it expire if my subscription ended but I would get sick of the same songs after a year anyway. Therefore, it was basically an infinite amount of total and complete high quality songs (and not just samples) for $96 versus 96 songs for $96 with Apple. I really miss that. I found so much new music that year I had it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

So Amazon tries to sell songs for less than itunes. Apple goes out and tells music publishers that if they allow their songs to be sold for less @ Amazon, that Apple will refuse to do any promotions for them @ itunes, pressuring them to not make their songs available to consumers for any less than what Apple deems the market price. Thanks Apple, we all enjoy your blacklisting and extortion and monopolizing practices.

itunes has already basically forced out my personal favorite digital download/streaming music site from the business - Yahoo Music. I subscribed to their yearly service for 2 years and bought many songs and albums from them until they pulled out due to pressure with being unable to compete with Apple.

It's not quite that simple. Artist/publisher royalties and record label shares from each song sale are pretty much set in stone at roughly 70¢-80¢, so if Amazon sells stuff for much under 99¢, they're pretty much selling at a no profit level, or even a loss, once you take into account the expenses of distribution. Perhaps they can afford to do so because they sell millions of other higher margin items on Amazon.com, so maybe they feel that drawing people to their music site will increase sales for the rest of their site, something Apple cannot benefit from nearly as much.

What really upset Apple was Amazon's Daily Deal, whereby they'd sell an album for $1.99 or $3.99, but still pay the full wholesale price (which is currently around $5) to the labels. Effectively, Amazon was subsidizing $1-3 per album downloaded and taking losses in order to generate traffic to their site and their MP3 store. Participating labels and bands were also required to advertise the Daily Deals on their sites, myspace pages, etc. So effectively, Amazon was indirectly buying advertising from bands and labels and undercutting iTunes at the same time. I can understand why Apple wasn't too enthused about this and they used their clout to put a stop to it. They're not preventing labels from selling through Amazon; they're just trying to prevent the labels, for whom they've made billions of dollars and who they've basically kept afloat and relevant in the digital age, from colluding with their competition to sell music at an unsustainable price.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's not quite that simple. Artist/publisher royalties and record label shares from each song sale are pretty much set in stone at roughly 70¢-80¢, so if Amazon sells stuff for much under 99¢, they're pretty much selling at a no profit level, or even a loss, once you take into account the expenses of distribution. Perhaps they can afford to do so because they sell millions of other higher margin items on Amazon.com, so maybe they feel that drawing people to their music site will increase sales for the rest of their site, something Apple cannot benefit from nearly as much.

What really upset Apple was Amazon's Daily Deal, whereby they'd sell an album for $1.99 or $3.99, but still pay the full wholesale price (which is currently around $5) to the labels. Effectively, Amazon was subsidizing $1-3 per album downloaded and taking losses in order to generate traffic to their site and their MP3 store. Participating labels and bands were also required to advertise the Daily Deals on their sites, myspace pages, etc. So effectively, Amazon was indirectly buying advertising from bands and labels and undercutting iTunes at the same time. I can understand why Apple wasn't too enthused about this and they used their clout to put a stop to it. They're not preventing labels from selling through Amazon; they're just trying to prevent the labels, for whom they've made billions of dollars and who they've basically kept afloat and relevant in the digital age, from colluding with their competition to sell music at an unsustainable price.

I don't see anything wrong with that as that's the same thing Wal-Mart and Grocery stores do, selling certain goods under cost to attract customers to buying other things or building on their image of cheaper prices.

It's not an unsustainable price, the profit is made from other songs and other items whereas the daily deal is the same as any other below cost sale that's a very common business practice.

If Apple has helped jump start the digital distribution age for music, I give them credit for that, but it's time to let real competition in. I hate so much clout in one company dominate any market.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I don't see anything wrong with that as that's the same thing Wal-Mart and Grocery stores do, selling certain goods under cost to attract customers to buying other things or building on their image of cheaper prices.

It's not an unsustainable price, the profit is made from other songs and other items whereas the daily deal is the same as any other below cost sale that's a very common business practice.

If Apple has helped jump start the digital distribution age for music, I give them credit for that, but it's time to let real competition in. I hate so much clout in one company dominate any market.

The labels would love to see Apple get into the loss-leader game too, and have both Apple and Amazon subsidizing consumer purchases of their music.

Apple won't play that game, and left it up to the labels to decide which is more valuable to them - having Amazon indirectly pay for promotion, or get more exposure on the worlds biggest online music store.

It would be different if Apple said to the labels that if Amazon runs a loss-leader on your product, that they would pull the album from the iTunes store - that would be evil. But that's not the case here.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

The labels would love to see Apple get into the loss-leader game too, and have both Apple and Amazon subsidizing consumer purchases of their music.

Apple won't play that game, and left it up to the labels to decide which is more valuable to them - having Amazon indirectly pay for promotion, or get more exposure on the worlds biggest online music store.

It would be different if Apple said to the labels that if Amazon runs a loss-leader on your product, that they would pull the album from the iTunes store - that would be evil. But that's not the case here.

They forced Amazon to stop offering the daily deal completely because publishers were pressured by Apple not to allow Amazon not offer songs at those prices. Like you said, Amazon was subsidizing consumer purchases of music and Apple would have none of it.

Why did Apple have to interfere? That's evil to me. Someone out there was offering a lower price, Apple threatens the record companies that they would stop promoting their music on itunes. That's just as bad as pulling the song altogether because marketing on the world's biggest storefront is very important for these publishers.

I agree that if the two were equal stature or there were more competitors on the marketplace that it's perfectly legitimate for one company to stop promoting music that another company is selling at a cheaper price. But Apple is big cheese here. Publishers basically have to kowtow to Apple's demands. It can do whatever it wants and consumers suffer in the end just because Apple doesn't want anybody to undercut them they can basically just tell publishers to stop allowing another store to set their own prices lower than Apple's and the publishers will listen.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I agree that if the two were equal stature or there were more competitors on the marketplace that it's perfectly legitimate for one company to stop promoting music that another company is selling at a cheaper price. But Apple is big cheese here. Publishers basically have to kowtow to Apple's demands. It can do whatever it wants and consumers suffer in the end just because Apple doesn't want anybody to undercut them they can basically just tell publishers to stop allowing another store to set their own prices lower than Apple's and the publishers will listen.

Really, it was Amazon that precipitated the whole thing - they got the labels to kowtow to their marketing scheme (although more likely it was the reverse), causing injury to another one of their strategic partners, and a very important one at that, Apple.

What exactly did the labels think would happen?

Overall, it’s all part of the cat and mouse game of industry. Nobody broke any rules, did anything deceptive, etc, everyone kept making money, and the consumer did not loose the ability to choose where they bought their music or what music was available.

Ultimately, fundamentally, it’s all been a net positive for online music consumers - we’ve got higher bitrates, no DRM, more selection, more places to get the selection from, etc.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Really, it was Amazon that precipitated the whole thing - they got the labels to kowtow to their marketing scheme (although more likely it was the reverse), causing injury to another one of their strategic partners, and a very important one at that, Apple.

What exactly did the labels think would happen?

Overall, it’s all part of the cat and mouse game of industry. Nobody broke any rules, did anything deceptive, etc, everyone kept making money, and the consumer did not loose the ability to choose where they bought their music or what music was available.

Ultimately, fundamentally, it’s all been a net positive for online music consumers - we’ve got higher bitrates, no DRM, more selection, more places to get the selection from, etc.

You still have to buy it. I guess I am also bitter because I want a subscription service available to Canada again with a decent music library. When Yahoo pulled the plug on me, it sent the American subscribers to Rhapsody (US only) and told Canadians they were screwed and would get nothing.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

You still have to buy it. I guess I am also bitter because I want a subscription service available to Canada again with a decent music library. When Yahoo pulled the plug on me, it sent the American subscribers to Rhapsody (US only) and told Canadians they were screwed and would get nothing.

Yeah, I would be interested in a subscription service too. You can blame that one squarely on the labels though - they are the ones, just like book publishers, that insist on geographically segregating their markets.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

What really upset Apple was Amazon's Daily Deal, whereby they'd sell an album for $1.99 or $3.99, but still pay the full wholesale price (which is currently around $5) to the labels. Effectively, Amazon was subsidizing $1-3 per album downloaded and taking losses in order to generate traffic to their site and their MP3 store. Participating labels and bands were also required to advertise the Daily Deals on their sites, myspace pages, etc. So effectively, Amazon was indirectly buying advertising from bands and labels and undercutting iTunes at the same time. I can understand why Apple wasn't too enthused about this and they used their clout to put a stop to it. They're not preventing labels from selling through Amazon; they're just trying to prevent the labels, for whom they've made billions of dollars and who they've basically kept afloat and relevant in the digital age, from colluding with their competition to sell music at an unsustainable price.

So?

If it was an unsustainable business practice Amazon would go broke. Which is what Apple would want anyways.

Problem is that Amazon was creating competition in a market that Apple had up till now dominated. Apparently the crybabies at Apple didn't like that.

Doesn't matter if they sold it for less than cost. The whole point of competition is that it should benefit the consumer. Which is what Amazon was doing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Really, it was Amazon that precipitated the whole thing - they got the labels to kowtow to their marketing scheme (although more likely it was the reverse), causing injury to another one of their strategic partners, and a very important one at that, Apple.

What exactly did the labels think would happen?

Overall, it’s all part of the cat and mouse game of industry. Nobody broke any rules, did anything deceptive, etc, everyone kept making money, and the consumer did not loose the ability to choose where they bought their music or what music was available.

Ultimately, fundamentally, it’s all been a net positive for online music consumers - we’ve got higher bitrates, no DRM, more selection, more places to get the selection from, etc.

In that case, Amazon should be commended for coming up with a marketing strategy where they attracted more business than the next company.

Is it their fault that they were being smart?

In a 'true' free market Apple should have turned around and come up with something that draws people back to their music store. Instead they used their power to force Amazon to stop a business practice that was creating competition for Apple.

Like I said, bunch of crybabies. If by offering the daily deal you attract more customers to your music store and they end up buying a lot of other music, that would be a good business policy. I'm sure Amazon ran all the numbers and found out that it benefited them to offer subsidized music in certain cases.

I don't understand why Apple would hate competition. They've shown the ability to make better products and offer better services(customer service especially)...than a lot of other companies. When they came up with the iPhone they jumped into a huge mobile market. Sure, there wasn't a phone on the market that was similar to the iPhone but that is exactly the point. Apple came up with something WAY better than anything someone else could make. Including RIM.

One would think other companies getting in the fold would be a GOOD thing, considering it encourages everyone to do things better.

[FanIn80]

You know how whenever I say something about Apple, people just call me a fanboy and then ignore whatever I've said? I pretty much do the same thing with a few people here, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I don't know what it is about Apple that polarizes everyone so much. It's just a company that makes a bunch of products. I don't get why people who use them have to defend their use of them, and people who don't use them have to defend not using them.

I'd like to get my hands on something that examines the whole Apple phenomenon. I don't really have a lot of time to devote to it, mind you, but it really does intrigue me.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You know how whenever I say something about Apple, people just call me a fanboy and then ignore whatever I've said? I pretty much do the same thing with a few people here, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I don't know what it is about Apple that polarizes everyone so much. It's just a company that makes a bunch of products. I don't get why people who use them have to defend their use of them, and people who don't use them have to defend not using them.

I'd like to get my hands on something that examines the whole Apple phenomenon. I don't really have a lot of time to devote to it, mind you, but it really does intrigue me.

For me, threads like this are a healty dose of welcome relief after the tech forums are flooded a new Apple threads for every new development about Apple that comes up.

Regarding the phenomenon, I think there is something very instrinsic to what you choose to do your computing on, how you do your computer (because it is a part of every aspect of our lives these days from work to hobbies to socializing, to creative processes), and what you choose for your phone, etc. to a person's personality. Therefore when people are for or against something, they are defending their own choices as it is a reflection of their own personality.

With the current Apple, the feeling is that Apple is getting too big and throwing their clout around and dominating the market with their influence where more healthy competition is needed. It's more or less the same as how much Microsoft was hated in the late 90s for all their power and monopolizing practices. For myself, I feel that people are blinded to this by Apple's marketing of their image which annoys me.

Mac vs. PC would make an excellent documentary, I'm surprised it hasn't been done yet but it is a constantly evolving thing yet and a big undertaking that is hard to keep objective.

[macker]

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...e-yet-it-isnt/

Fast Money was reporting last night that float adjusted Apple has a bigger market cap vs Microsoft and is second only to Exxon overall. But still.....the best marketers in the world came out with the iPad

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For me, threads like this are a healty dose of welcome relief after the tech forums are flooded a new Apple threads for every new development about Apple that comes up.

It's not Apple's fault other companies aren't doing something worth talking about.

I've said many times that there's nothing stopping you guys from creating an Android thread, or a Windows 7 thread or an... HP thread? Maybe a new thread about Canon printers?

There are lots of things for you guys to talk about...

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's more or less the same as how much Microsoft was hated in the late 90s for all their power and monopolizing practices.

I think most regular people hated Microsoft because they made crappy products and flooded the planet with them. The competition and the courts had some other reasons, sure, but Mrs Smith down at the local library pretty much just hated Word and Excel and how many times her PC crashed every week.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I think most regular people hated Microsoft because they made crappy products and flooded the planet with them. The competition and the courts had some other reasons, sure, but Mrs Smith down at the local library pretty much just hated Word and Excel and how many times her PC crashed every week.

And I think that's one of the basic reasons for the debate. One is sort of like user friendliness and accessibility to the average user. I've never once argued that Macs are not easier to use and better looking and friendlier to most people.

I don't like Windows, I don't like Microsoft - but I like the freedom with PCs to put whatever hardware in that I want, and the greater freedom to use any software I want. Yep, PCs will always have more viruses than Macs or break down all the time due to bugs and incompatibility. That's what you get for having a platform where so many companies make so many products that are supposed to always work together but in many cases do not properly.

Macs are like videogame console. The standards are set, the drivers are unified and system closed. Everything is heavily tested to work together. Software can be programmed for it specifically to take advantage of it's strengths. You have less problems. The tradeoff is less choice and freedom. Developers do what Apple dictate they have to do or just suck it. IE: The whole Adobe thing. I love Adobe, I love flash. I have tons of flash files and flash work. I'm told I can't use it because some company decides it's not in line with their corporate strategy masqueraded behind some high horsed moral superiority PR memos? Well you know what my response would be.

I can't speak for others, but personally I don't like that. And I don't like Apple's industrial design and corporate branding and image that they put on everything. Makes me feel like a drone. I haven't used OSX much but I can tell you that when I have used it, I have enjoyed it and it's slick and it's pretty awesome. I simply don't want to use it inside a piece of Apple hardware that looks like an Apple, that has Apple marketing, Apple's corporate style, and I don't want the GUI to look like Apple either. I'd probably make it look like linux or something of my own design if I could. That part of it is really all a subjective and an irrational response to what I consider beautiful or not. It's the same reason I refuse to use Firefox and use Opera instead.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

It's not Apple's fault other companies aren't doing something worth talking about.

I've said many times that there's nothing stopping you guys from creating an Android thread, or a Windows 7 thread or an... HP thread? Maybe a new thread about Canon printers?

There are lots of things for you guys to talk about...

Apple has a very unified and basic release patten to their stuff which are aggregated into a small number of products so it's like a few big events coming out at intervals to keep people talking and interested. TBQH, with all the other tech stuff, there's so much stuff coming out everyday from every direction, I really doubt there is enough critical mass of people interested in a specific thing to make a thread worth talking about.

There are other forums for that where I will easily make threads about things, or people could just read any of the tech blogs like engadget for that. I see this as a very general and "average joe" tech forum. Apple is perfect for that.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You know how whenever I say something about Apple, people just call me a fanboy and then ignore whatever I've said? I pretty much do the same thing with a few people here, but on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I don't know what it is about Apple that polarizes everyone so much. It's just a company that makes a bunch of products. I don't get why people who use them have to defend their use of them, and people who don't use them have to defend not using them.

I'd like to get my hands on something that examines the whole Apple phenomenon. I don't really have a lot of time to devote to it, mind you, but it really does intrigue me.

I think that some of it can be blamed on flame wars from the past and the need to say "I told you so".

For years, Microsoft has had the stereotype of the huge, faceless, money grubbing monopoly that killed creativity for fun. The mac guys would always throw this in the face of the PC lover. Now that Apple is growing and making some questionable decisions, the PC dudes are all over it. Both sides are as guilty as the other though.

It would actually be really interesting to go back 5 or 10 years and compare the debates to today.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I think that some of it can be blamed on flame wars from the past and the need to say "I told you so".

For years, Microsoft has had the stereotype of the huge, faceless, money grubbing monopoly that killed creativity for fun. The mac guys would always throw this in the face of the PC lover. Now that Apple is growing and making some questionable decisions, the PC dudes are all over it. Both sides are as guilty as the other though.

It would actually be really interesting to go back 5 or 10 years and compare the debates to today.

Apple themselves have always made their marketing about "Apple vs. PC", even back in their darker days. It's natural that people would organize along those lines. This is their doing when the choice really should and could be "why not both?" (like FanIn80 is doing). The one or the other zero sum game feeds this too.

Why not have a cool utility truck and also a slick little miata? :P Some tough guys would never be caught in public driving the miata but it's a fun awesome car.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Apple themselves have always made their marketing about "Apple vs. PC", even back in their darker days. It's natural that people would organize along those lines. This is their doing when the choice really should and could be "why not both?" (like FanIn80 is doing). The one or the other zero sum game feeds this too.

Why not have a cool utility truck and also a slick little miata? :P Some tough guys would never be caught in public driving the miata but it's a fun awesome car.

Yeah, very good point.

And who uses a Miata in their analogy? Awesome, lol.

[FanIn80]

I used to like Miatas (actually, more like the BMW Z3), but then I discovered...



I heart British Racing Green, btw.