Slashdot Mirror
Jobs Resists Music Industry Pressure
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.
Am I missing something? They're going increase the price of songs so you're paying pretty much the same price as a cd to have it in a proprietary, non-portable format with no artwork and nothing tangible? What benefit would people be getting from the iTunes music store at that point, exactly?
The idea that the prices of music should go up is ludicrous. There is a site out there called AllOfMP3 that charges a nominal fee based on the file size, and it allows you to change the format and bitrate of files you download. It is, quite possibly, the most sophisticated online music store out there. I can get a full album for 1.10$. Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies.
It's revolutionary, and it's a model that iTunes could stand to look at. Never will I pay 99 cents a song again.
As the price of reproduction drops, the price of the item should drop correspondingly. At least that's how the economic theory goes. Profit margins drop but profits are made through bulk sales, much like today's commodity ethernet cards and memory chips. It allows for many companies (or artists) to create a product, spurring competition, providing choice. All of this is good for the consumer.
Yeah, the RIAA is still trying to stick it to us.
Ok. First of all, I don't know exactly what they're talking about - online or Pressed CDS. But, selling a song for $.99 or $9.99 an album WITHOUT HAVING TO PRESS A CD, MAKE COVER ART, have a jewel case, and truck it to the stores, is pretty steep. I was part of a survey a couple of years ago asking "how much would you pay to download a song?" I answered, "$.25" Asked why, I answered, "Because the music publishers do not have any media costs other than bandwidth and royalties. Excluding the royalties (which are a constant), bandwidth is MUCH cheaper than jewel cases, CD, physical distribution costs (trucking of the CDs, etc...) and the artwork."
In short, I think Jobs is right on the money here.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?
Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.
The online shop (iTunes for instance) could take care of the marketing as well.
The glass is half-full. With poison. And there are cracks in the glass. The dirty, dirty glass.
The seller of a product will usually set the price of a product to a level that he thinks the market is able bear without turning to alternatives (theft, competition, abstinence, etc.). If the good ole' boys over at the RIAA think that $9.99 for a downloadable album is not enough (and trust me - they do!) then they'll explore every nook and cranny if they can get away with charging a few bucks more! Businesses have no sense of 'fair', 'good', or 'evil' - they produce a product and will try to squeeze as much profit out of their customers as possible. If the profits are less than expected than they will try to 'instill demand' (think advertising and other types of brainstorming) to somehow part Joe Shmoe with part of his earnings.
At the end of the day, it's a voting game - they rise the prices, we go back to piracy. Trust me, economic consequence is the only language they understand. Companies are by default pathological entities that have no compassion, vision (in most cases at least), remorse, or concience. It will squeeze you for all you got - that's why it is a commercial entity! The democratic mediator is the consumer and obviously most of the responses on this thread (it just started and I'm an early poster, but let me just guess ;-) will be against a price hike. If nothing else the RIAA is looking in the wrong direction - as competition brews I believe that these prices should come down, not go up. After all, there is no physical media involved and selling bags of bites is a great business to be in...
I remember reading an interview with one of my very favorite artists where she said something along the lines that digital music is theft.
And I thought to myself, that if she saw me listening to her music on my iPod she's probably be angry with me, but how many times did I buy the same album by her? I could actually count 4 times: LP, Cassette, CD, remastered "special edition" CD. The only records of hers I haven't bought more than once are out of print.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
And of course for non-chart music, you could probably pick up the actual CD for less just by scouring eBay, zShops or even a sale in a regular bricks & mortar store.
I'll probably get modded as a troll for not saying "apple R0X0RZ", but whatever.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
I find I like the original recordings better mostly. It's like Black and White movies. The artists work with whatever medium they had at the time, and got it to sound (or in the case of B&W movies, look) the way they wanted, and that was that.
I'm sure that the Beatles could have done some funky ass stuff with Dolby Surround. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds could have been tripped out big time. But they didn't have access to it. So....why would I want a DTS5 channel version of it? Did John help remix it? No.
I do like my classic jazz remastered. But anything past like 1965 or so should be left alone.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
The difference between Steve Jobs' wealth and the RIAA is that Steve grew his own business and continues to do so. The record companies want to raise prices for doing nothing. Being a billionaire is not necessarily a sign of being greedy if you work for it. The RIAA is a bunch of middlemen that lets others work for their wealth, so they are decidedly greedy.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Nothing by George Harrison
See "Apple Records vs. Apple Computer".
I am sure this is a casual comment by Jobs, because he is in the catbird seat and has no reason to worry. He has the power here.
What are the labels going to do if they don't like the terms of iTunes music store? Go to another store? No.
1. No other store has near the volume or reach of Apple's. No one else has the brand recognition or ease of use.
2. By far the number one music player is the iPod, and only the Apple music store can sell protected music files that work on that player. The labels could try and sell unprotected MP3 files but this seems unlikely.
So going above 99 cents per track means either convinving Jobs (not likely) or moving music off the Apple music store -- which means lost sales and possibly more piracy. Not going to happen. Jobs is in a great position.
"I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear."
Just like you should have the rights to download OS or applicaiton updates forever? If you weren't happy with your music choice at the time you should not have purchased it, simply because it's improved later does NOT give you the right to receive a free upgrade.
"How come no one has ever brought this up?"
Because it is a stupid idea.
Because iTunes isn't operating out of the ex-Soviet-Union.
He's charging you for the development and maintenance of the iTMS interface, as well as for the not insignificant cost of negotiating deals with the labels for distribution and sale. I'll gladly pay him--what is it, 5 cents a song?--to do all that dirty work for me.
Uh huh. Stevie boy is a good old guy with no ego. Just a normal guy you can respect. And Bill Gates he's the devil incarnate. Well, the billionaire philanthropist devil incarnate, who's donated 7 billion dollars to various causes as diverse as AIDs research and the United Negro College Foundation.
Oh but that's just good press for Microsoft you say. So what? Running the largest charitable foundation in the world is an excellent way to get good press, and it benefits people all over the world.
So Jobs gets a $1 salary. Wheee. And a Lear jet, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in reimbursements from Apple.
I'm not trying to say Jobs is the evil one. Hell, both of them are business men, both have used nasty business tactics (if you think Jobs is a saint, read some of what Woz has said happened at Apple), both of them are rich and can afford a fancy house or personal jet plane. There is no reason to deify or demonize either of them. But buying into Apple's PR image of Jobs is just silly.
(Larry Ellison however, IS the devil incarnate)
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I don't believe parent is talking about the end-user machines the content is delivered to.
If you don't think there are real costs associated with distributing music, you are mistaken. The server space, the CPU, and the bandwidth needed to store, process, and deliver the ~5mb/each songs to the end user, are not free. Apple pays royalties on the songs and pays for the above, so their profit, while significant, is not 100% of the money they get.
I, for one, applaud Jobs - instead of succumbing to pressure and using the price increase to increase his profit margins, he's doing something decent by resisting the record companies' pressure. Granted, his motives may not be entirely altruistic, but nevertheless, Apple is setting a superb example that, no doubt, many companies will follow. If Jobs keeps prices at 99c a song, competing services will hardly be able to raise prices without losing customers to Apple - something they decidedly do not want to do. So in this case, Jobs is keeping the market stable in the face of significant pressure from the record companies.
The age of free legal (or even semi-legal) mainstream music has come and passed. You still have advertisement-supported radio, but to legally get ad-free, high-quality music, you can no longer go to a source like KaZaa and BitTorrent and expect the transaction to be risk-free (although I haven't heard of anyone being nabbed for getting MP3s from newsgroups, IRC, or various FTPs.) Not to say that there is significant risk - about 15 of the ~1200 tracks on my iPod were obtained through "good" sources, and I've yet to hear a word from anyone - but it is no longer as convenient or as safe to download them illegally as it is to buy them. This creates a balancing act between the difficulty of obtaining music freely/morality/risk factor and the price of legal music, and Jobs realizes that disrupting that balancing act by raising prices could create a trend of dissatisfied customers that decide to switch to illegal methods.
What puzzles me, though, is how blindly record companies are pressuring the distribution networks that are, in a way, their safety net for the tech-savvy majority of the highly appealing 18-25 demographic. While I've stopped expecting intelligent decisions from them long ago, the RIAA are now crossing the boundary between pure greed and pure stupidity. I believe that this will, eventually, kill them, and I, for one, have no objections to that.
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.