Forums | MacLife

I have to admit it, since I do get my legal downloads thru iTunes and eMusic, that the Amazon's Music Store seems like the only REAL threat to iTunes' dominance.

I wonder if it'll ever be available up here in Canada...?

jeff-o wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I'll continue to be a dinosaur and purchase cds, thanks.

+1

Why don't you both continue to be dinosaur's and send us your next response via the Post Office

Frank

Czachorski wrote:

Some interesting conspiracy theories floating around...

I wouldn't put it past them. I do think they want to splinter the market as much as possible so that they can keep whatever control they feel they have in hand. I wish they would just roll over dead. In Dylan's words:

     And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
     Down to your deathbed
     And I’ll stand o’er your grave
     â€˜Til I’m sure that you’re dead

Let's just hope their time comes soon.

Cheers,
ptervin

Czachorski wrote:

Some interesting conspiracy theories floating around the web over this.  UMG refuses to renew their iTS contract over wanting tiered higher pricing, and then they turn around and give Amazon a single, lower price than Apple and with no DRM.  The other labels don't even have DRM free offerings with Apple, but they give it to Amazon.  Why would that be?

Might they purposely be trying to create a valid competitor to Apple, by releasing higher-quality, DRM-free tracks at a lower price elsewhere to kill off Apple's dominance, and then without a single dominant player on the digital distrubtion, they can demand what they really want:  higher prices, more controlled DRM, etc.  Interesting theories.

They aren't conspiracy theories. They are based in fact. Check out the quotes in this article from the chairman of Warner Music Group:
http://phonedifferent.com/2007/09/itune … ffect.html

Frank

Czachorski wrote:

frankly wrote:

They aren't conspiracy theories. They are based in fact. Check out the quotes in this article from the chairman of Warner Music Group:
http://phonedifferent.com/2007/09/itune … ffect.html

Frank

I can believe it.  The greatest thing about the situation is that it will end up being Apple's dominance that kills DRM.

That is irony at its best. I love it.

Today's lesson: Always choose a dominant who is worthy of your trust.

But everyone loves windows 95

its DLANTZ again.... wrote:

I think it's about time that the iTMS had some REAL competition. This can only be GOOD for the consumer.

Yup. 

I only downloaded 1-2 movies from iTS before I dumped them.  I want to rent movies to watch on my TV.  Apple does not offer that, and even to get them to your TV you have to buy a $300 box.  Amazon unbox sends rented movies straight to my Tivo.  Now that is working for me.  Competition is a great thing.

iThinkIam wrote:

As I understand it the issue that the labels really have with Apple's iTunes DRM is that is only plays on Apple's devices.

I can't imagine why it would matter to them, as long as they're getting paid.

Basically Apple is only willing to give them the agreed upon share on the media sold not kickbacks for the devices that play said media like the RIAA & MPAA want. As long as they get the kickbacks the AAs don't care if it's only Apple or only Microsoft or only Amazon or only someone else or any combination of said distributers.

iThinkIam wrote:

bratboy wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

As I understand it the issue that the labels really have with Apple's iTunes DRM is that is only plays on Apple's devices.

I can't imagine why it would matter to them, as long as they're getting paid.

So your point is that Universal likes helping Apple's hardware profit margins with their content?

Uh, no.

Wow, you have a total lack of understanding of the entire concept, don't you? What smurfing difference does it make if the labels are free to sell their music at other music stores that will allow it to play on other devices? Oh that's right, they already do. So what difference does it make if the music sold from the iTunes store only plays on iPods? It doesn't and your entire theory makes no senses whatsoever.

iThinkIam wrote:

and,

http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/09/univ … zune-sold/

I've heard its one dollar.

Now then, I recall Apple has sold well over 100 million units of hardware.  I think its conservative to assume Apple's avg take is $20 per unit.  Pretty sure thats then at least $2 billion, and the number is likely higher.  Especially as it trickles back to Apple computer purchases and accessories.

Then, compare that to the $.10 or .07 the labels are getting on the 1 billion in LEGAL music downloads.

That means Apple, whose devices we all know are filled with illegally downloaded content, has paid back to the labels [mostly corporate], about what... $100 million tops?  A lousy dollar per unit would double all the revenue from the iTMS!?

I have a hard time not understanding where the industry is coming from in this one.  I think it would be fair play for Apple to pay blanket royalties on the hardware.

Wouldn't be much of a market for iPods without the content, aka, music.

How about this, because the frickin' record company didn't design, manufacture or sell the iPod hardware. I can use an iPod with music purchased from other means. You seem to be making the completely erroneous assumption that because Apple has sold way more iPods than they have sold songs on the iTunes store that people are therefore stealing the rest of the music they have loaded on them. This is the same ridiculous assumption being made by the RIAA and it pisses me off. If Apple paid the RIAA a portion of the money I paid for an iPod I might stop buying them. I legally own all of my music. I have purchased a little over 300 songs from iTunes but I own well over 300 CDs, each with 10-15 songs on them, 400 vinyl records with the same, and 500 vinyl 45s with two songs each. I have just under 5000 songs in my iTunes library. So your suggestion is that I should pay the RIAA again for that music via my hardware purchase???

Did my turntable manufacturer have to pay the RIAA in order for me to play music on it? How about the CD Player manufacturer??? This is absolutely ludicrous and it needs to stop NOW. Microsoft was smurfing stupid to pay that $1 per Zune.

Frank