Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure 634
Drew writes "Steve Jobs is opposed to raising the price of online music sales, calling the music industry greedy, and
implying that price increases will bring about more piracy." From the article: "It may not seem like it, but it has been more than two years since the launch of the iTunes Music Store, and that alone has the music industry brimming with hopes for price-adjustments. They also don't buy Jobs' argument that a price increase will result in more piracy, but probably not for the reasons we might assume. I've long been of the conviction that piracy is not nearly as large of a problem as the RIAA makes it out to be." Also covered at Macworld.
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
On a semi-related note... (Score:2, Informative)
= Nothing by George Harrison
= Nothing by Queen
= Jamiroquai albums are mostly missing as well
what's up with that? yeah, Jamiroquai might be a little niche, but don't tell me that Queen and George Harrison are.
allofmp3.com (Score:1, Informative)
http://allofmp3.com/ [allofmp3.com] does it right. Not only can you select what format you want (MP3, OGG, FLAC, many, many, others), the prices are based soley on the size of the resulting file. On average the price is $0.02 USD per megabyte. I purchased 5 songs last night for only $0.54. However, I could have gotten the same 5 songs in FLAC format for only $2.50.
Why couldn't iTunes do the same?
Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0 (Score:3, Informative)
In the beginning, music was tied to a chunk of plastic. Then, the plastic was made optional and you could buy it online (with negligible distribution costs)... but to avoid gutting the existing plastic sales, the prices were fixed similarly.
There was an initial resistance to bits vs plastic because everyone thought the real cost was in the pressing and printing and cover art... but that's faded in the past 2 years. Now that the plastic-free version has taken off and people are starting to appreciate that they're paying for the music and not the disc, the question becomes "What is the music worth to you?"
It's not relative to other plastic discs, it's relative to other pursuits of happiness. If you LOVE this song, it's gotta be worth more than $0.99.
In other words, they had trouble getting over the lack of plastic at first, and now they're so excited about "apples vs oranges" economics that they're DYING to try out selling Coldplay for $3/track. And while YOU won't do it, there are a bunch of "I gots me an AOL" folks who WILL, and that's all you need to make it worthwhile.
I agree with Jobs on this, and I agree with you, but I think everyone underestimates how astoundingly greedy the RIAA can be.
* in all fairness, if you weren't behind the curve, you'd likely be a bad person
Re:Greed. (Score:2, Informative)
At first, I laughed out loud at your preposterous comment, but then I remembered that they already already do [apple.com].
Re:Greed. (Score:5, Informative)
Most of his wealth is in the form of Pixar stock - and he doesn't give that up because he wants to retain control of the company.
Unlike a lot of rich people (Gates, Ellison,
Yes, he is not hurting for money. But he doesn't *live* like a greedy person. He could be getting paid more at Apple than he does if that was what he cared about. I think he cares more about retaining control at Apple than he does about money. He retains control by keeping Apple healthy, and also by keeping his "moral authority" by being the guy who works for $1/year.
Whatever you might say about Jobs, he's a person that I can have some respect for. He lives his life pretty modestly, works very hard, and cares a lot about quality.
Re:A different approach to the online music market (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A different approach to the online music market (Score:2, Informative)
Is it legal to download music from site AllOFMP3.com?
All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.
Users are responsible for any usage and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility depends on the local legislation of each user's country of residence. AllOFMP3.com's Administration does not keep up with the laws of different countries and is not responsible the actions of non-Russian users.
Re:On a semi-related note... (Score:3, Informative)
hmmmmm, I wonder if iTunes Canada (which is what I'm using) has a different availability in this case.
Re:Marginal cost is nearly $0 (Score:3, Informative)
What economic theory is that?
Given infinite supply to a market (which is the case here, unless supply is artificially limited -- i.e., only the first 1000 people can download each day), the only pressure on price is demand. Recording companies spend tons of money on marketing to increase this demand. Cost of goods sold has absolutely nothing to do with price -- only with profit and loss.
In this case, though, we have an artificially fixed price. This does not change demand, but instead changes what proportion of that demand is met through the black market.
"Profit margins drop but profits are made through bulk sales, much like today's commodity ethernet cards and memory chips."
Hogwash. No consumer buys "song downloads" in bulk to resell them. Unless the recording companies are selling rights of transfer for x number of downloads for y dollars to Apple, which I highly doubt.
I think what you mean is that companies will still see increased profits due to larger sales volume, if they lower prices. While this may be true, it may not be the most profitable method of pricing.
If at $1 ea, I sell 100 songs, I realize $100 revenue. If I price the song at $0.50 ea, but sell 180 copies, my revenues are only $90, and my marginal costs will be higher, since I sold more copies. The pricing curve for songs will determine what price I should set to maximize my profits.
Re:I remember when... (Score:2, Informative)
But who am I to get in the way of you playing the victim because you're too poor to pay 99c for a luxury item (music).
A hint for the moderator who made 'viewtouch' +2 insightful: when 'viewtouch' was born, copyright law was in force. If he/she has made a copy of some music without the permission of the copyright holder at any time in his life, it would have been illegal. Therefore, 'viewtouch' is lying, he never remembered such a time because such a time never existed in his lifetime.
But who am I to spoil the party? Mod him up to +5 for playing the 'feel good' card, and mod me down for pointing out reality. We have to maintain the RDF, even at the expense of reason and fact.
Re:Abroad... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Abroad... (Score:2, Informative)
Uhm, let's break that list down a bit
Re:Maybe naive (Score:2, Informative)
I think the record company would do well to mimic these guys... but then of course, they'd have to play nice.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
I think a lot of people assume that using iTunes/iPod you are stuck with DRM software. You aren't people. You only get that with PURCHASED music from iTunes Music Store.
Re:Greed. (Score:1, Informative)
Apple is already a record company... Apple Records. It's the label the Beatles started.
Apple Computer can never be a record company. They have a longstanding contract with Apple Records stating they won't do that. They're already involved in a very costly litigation over the fact that they're distributing music at all. To become an actual record company would threaten Apple Computer's ability to use Apple as a brand for anything, which currently rests on the agreement with Apple Records.
Re:Jobs and Apple don't have a leg to stand on... (Score:3, Informative)
The music industry could pull out anytime it wanted and could destroy iTunes.
Maybe, maybe not. The RIAA has already been convicted of price fixing. Taking all their songs and going home from the number one online music seller might result in some serious legal problems. Forcing price hikes might result in the same for that matter. You might think, "so what the legal system is corrupt anyway" and you'd be right, up to a point. But unlike operating systems people understand increased music prices and they understand the itunes store having all the music unavailable and I seriously doubt they will be happy about either. Jobs making this all public is step number one. And any politician who is looking for speaking points and free press has a new cause to champion and a new villain to vilify. Aren't you going to vote for the gubernatorial candidate who promises to "stop those fat cat music moguls and make them offer music at a reasonable price again!" The RIAA better think very carefully before they play the bully with this one.
Re:Greed. (Score:1, Informative)
Do you know how much a license for MP3 usage costs? They start at 10,000 dollars. Do you have that kind of money? Who cares what format it is in, as long as there is a way to play it. Since you seem to know everything about online music though...I'm sure none of this matters anyway
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)