Now that Apple has the iPod design legally bound to them, next up is the iPhone. Watch out for all those lawsuits for the knockoffs available almost everywhere.
HBO has been granted a flexible pricing scheme for their content to be available on iTunes. But Apple didn’t give that option to Showtime. Hmm… Could this be a sign for NBC coming back to iTunes after their shows are made available on the UK iTunes Store this month. The plot thickens…
It is inevitable for media companies not to support iTunes or any other content distributor if they are bothered by the massive market share of iTunes. I’d prefer it that all content providers just sell their stuff everywhere and there are formats available for almost every major device. Then that would make all the difference.
In what could be the biggest threat the Apple iTunes store could face is this announcement by Amazon to be able to sell music anywhere in the world DRM free. But how anywhere is anywhere?
One of the biggest flaws of the iTunes store in my opinion is the limited number of countries who have it. Basically it’s just the US, EU and Japan. Apparently other countries in Asia do not need a store where officials say piracy is rampant. The limited capacity of iTunes to sell music to other countries is based on the limited rights they have with the recording company. This resulted in the varied pricing models seen in EU which practically has separate iTunes stores per country.
Unfortunately the DRM imposed by the music labels on online merchants has caused the dominance of iTunes. They wanted music that is secure enough and one way to do that is to limit the hardware where the music can be played and embed security all over it. They thought it wouldn’t last. They were apparently wrong in their projections.
Now that they want a piece of the cake, Apple will not give in. There is no way that Apple was going to raise prices or even lower prices for songs. So they allowed Amazon now to sell DRM-free music. Just to get back at Apple. Childish.
Consumers hate complicated things. It just used to be a CD from the store that can play in any player. That is the model that Amazon is exploring with their online store. I love music. I buy my music legally. Sometimes it’s expensive but I take the effort to bring it in to my iPod. I buy from the iTunes store because I like it. I like the simplicity that I can buy music and sync it to my iPod. Or even better, buy music from my iPod and play it on my iPod right now.
These are things that consumers want. DRM free music is something that consumers want. But I still want it on my iPod.
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I’ve been neglecting my regular posts here and I know I have to post on a lot of things.
A cut of anyone’s hardware sales is ridiculous and I can probably guess how Apple reacted when they heard that from NBC Universal. Just because that Microsoft and Zune said yes to the $1 “tax” doesn’t mean that the rest of the industry will follow suit. Why don’t they do the same on the content they “rent” on the Xbox Marketplace since Microsoft recently announced that fir the first time, their gaming unit is finally earning some money. Plus the reasoning that the reason for the “tax” is because people bought the iPod so they can but their shows off the iTunes store. But take note, their shows are only sold in the USA and not in the rest of the world. Don’t tell me they also wanted a cut of the iPod sales in Japan??
Then if they weren’t getting enough money off iTunes, then sell it everywhere. Why alienate the Mac users whose only way of getting legal downloads of their shows that would play on they iPods? There is a lot of potential and a lot of places where they can sell their content. I prefer to sell everywhere than nowhere. It’s not as if it costs them a lot more to sell or convert in other drm filled formats.
So where does this bring NBC Universal, one word, HULU!!
Who what? Apparently NBC has also pulled all their content off You Tube and placed it into their own ad filled video site called HULU! Currently in private beta (which means most of us cannot get into), it promises many things (other than having a “creative” name). But it still remains to be seen if NBC decisions will either separate them from Apple (as they have vowed to do) or will they come running back.
It’s kinda hard to imagine that six years ago Apple went into the digital music player business which at the time was a perceived as late comer to the game. Now Six billion tunes and millions of iPods later including a phone, the iPod is the unprecedented leader of the digital music player market. From zero market share to almost every popular music player out there it shows that anything can happen in this business.
NBC counters iTunes in this round by offering their shows for free via their website which should eventually lead to a paid service in the future.
What part does NBC doesn’t understand? TV is inherently free. The said “free” shows are only viewable on your PC and only have a license for 5 days. These cannot be transferred to your portable device and is only compatible with PCs.
NBC joins other networks such as CBS and ABC who also put their shows online. But unlike ABC, it is not mac compatible. All have ads on their website in order for them to show it for free. NBC promises that a paid service will be available (other than their deal with Amazon Unbox).
Sure NBC can charge and bundle whatever they want on their website but one thing remains. It still wont play on my iPod. That is what matters to me. The consumer. My needs. If it doesn’t satisfy my need. Why should I even pay for it? Are they deliberately ignoring the millions of iPod users and mac users with this move? Why don’t they get it that I’ll just TiVO the show, or join others that live on torrents.
99 cents per show – There apparently was more to NBC’s decision to pull its shows out of the iTunes Store than we were led to believe. Apple is reportedly pushing the concept of cutting the prices of TV shows to 99¢.I must agree with Apple’s pricing strategy. It would match with a a lot of peole’s views. Why should I pay for something that I can normally get it for free? I think that even the $1.99 was a stretch. When the DVDs the come out, you can get better quality off the DVD which is cheaper than the stuff that comes out of the iTunes store. Not to mention the poor quality of the files that comes out of the iTunes store when played on an HDTV. I saw the Apple TV on display at the Apple Store and the quality was very bad. Think YouTube.I’m waiting for NBC’s press release on this. This actually makes their $4.99 seem ludicrous. But if Apple can get HD content out of that iTunes store and put it in my Apple TV and iPod touch I’ll gladly pay the $1.99 they’re charging now. Now they have to figure out how to get that HD file size into our home without hogging all our bandwidth and won’t take forever.
Apple today announced major updates to the iPod family at its “The Beat Goes On” special event in San Francisco. The iPod shuffle saw a refresh with new colors and packaging, an all-new iPod nano was introduced, as well as the iPod classic (which replaces the original “iPod” in the company’s lineup), and the all-new iPod tou…Now this is the announcement I’ve been waiting for almost a year now. I have been waiting for that RED (PRODUCT) Shuffle and that touch screen iPod and for once it seems my predictions were right. But I’m really getting that 16GB iPod touch. It seems to be the perfect for users who already have a larger capacity hard drive but wanting an iPhone without the phone. The built-in WiFi is impressive and here’s hoping that they’ll be able to put the whole iTunes store in the wifi store. The Starbucks integration is a nice touch. The ability to buy and download the song playing in the store is impressive. I wont be surprised if other stores will follow suit. Seems like it was a bad call for NBC to move their shows off iTunes.
In a recent NY Times interview with music producer Rick Rubin as he predicts that iPods will be obsolete, he endorses the subscription model as used by Napster and other music rental services. MacNN also notes that David Geffen also sees the subscription model as the way to save the music industry.
Hmmm, save the music industry, but apparently not the musicians. In some ways, Mr. Rick Rubin is true. The iPod will be obsolete but not the in the foreseeable future I’m afraid. The music industry has been clueless into saving it’s business since the age of Napster (the original P2P network) and mp3 came about. It is easy to forget that this subscription model was already around even before the launch of the iPod and the iTunes Store and still it didn’t convince people to get their music from there since basically they didn’t own the music. It was like an apartment, you rent it. CRAZY!
Now that the iTunes store is quite successful in it’s own right, they just want a cut off everything. They do not see the amount of bandwidth that Apple has to pay to keep the store running. They do not see the amount of people now buying music legally. They do not see that it is not the iTunes store that drives the sales (since the iTunes store is only accessible in mostly western countries apart from Japan. It is a way for people to buy music that they can play on their iPods seamlessly. How bad it that?
Most online retailers do not support Apple’s Fairplay DRM and thus scaring away most iTunes users (iTunes comes free BTW) and how exactly would it be better for us. I don’t have a PC so if I want to buy music, I want it working on my iPod. Because that’s what I want and not what music executive wants. At the end of the day what I want mattters anyway since it’s my money being spent around.
People buy CD’s, or at least they used to. People buy music they do not rent it.
Let’s look back with the iTunes-Pepsi commercial featuring Green Day’s song and all these kids who were sued by the music industry for downloading music off the internet.
And so it begins. Universal Music Group exec Doug Morris told the Reuters Media Summit that his company is interested in receiving a cut of the profits from each iPod sold.
I know it’s been a really long while since I blogged so here it goes. No content maker should charge the very medium of it’s products for a “cut” of the profits. I mean Why???
Do movie studios get a cut off each DVD player or TV sold? Do TV networks get a cut off each TV or VCR sold? This is ridiculous. The “tax” is based on the assumption that every iPod or portable media device is purchased for the sole purpose of pirating music. Microsoft seems to admit to that fact since they started the whole thing of giving Universal Music a cut off each Zune sold. Doesn’t that also imply that everyone who buys their products will pirate music. I would feel insulted that people already imply that I pirate music. Wait a minute, it’s not even implied, not even suggested, it’s a given fact. You can have your Zune. And your “cut”. I’m not going to be insulted by greedy music companies who don’t know what change is.
That is a sad thing. Where the music industry has gone. It’s one thing to go after pirates. It’s another to start taxing a product that has reinvigorated the entire music industry. I mean, where were they? I ditched my cassete tape since the quality was lousy. I went to CDs but the thing skipped when I played it in the car or when I go walking. The only place where I could listen to my music was at home or in my computer. Then the iPod came along. Now I carry all my tunes in my iPod and more. I am more inclined to buy albums online than in retail stores since it’s too far and the computer is right there.
Say no to this “tax”. Go ahead and pull out of the iTunes Store. Let’s see who’ll buy your music now. Probably pirates.
Procrastinating in the Heat 